A Maxwell Universe - Part II
All-there-is from source-free electromagnetic energy.
Part II
All-there-is from source-free electromagnetic energy. Part II
2026-01-14
To my friend, that contributed to almost every idea here written; knowingly, unknowingly, or even contradicting them.
Also to you, reader.
This part does not introduce new equations, new forces, or new postulates. It revisits familiar results under a single restriction: only source-free Maxwell dynamics are assumed.
Throughout this work, “particle”, “mass”, and “charge” are names given to self-confined, self-sustained electromagnetic field configurations. They are not assumed as microscopic primitives.
This text does not proceed by axioms and deductions, but by re-anchoring familiar results in a different ontology. The order reflects conceptual recognition rather than pedagogical construction.
The guiding observation is simple: the same equations already contain more structure than we usually allow ourselves to see.
Discrete spectra, inertia, charge, and stability appear not as added principles, but as consequences of global closure, continuity, and energy flow governed by source-free Maxwell equations and energy conservation.
The Rydberg series is taken as the point of entry, as direct evidence that electromagnetic fields, when globally constrained, can organize energy discretely — without invoking quantum-mechanical postulates, particles, measurement collapse, or probabilistic interpretation.
From this anchor, the remaining properties of matter —mass, motion, charge, and stability— are traced back to the same source: electromagnetic energy.
The story of physics is usually told as a descent into the microscopic: materials are made of molecules, molecules of atoms, atoms of subatomic particles. As we dig deeper, the properties of these constituents become increasingly abstract. We speak of “mass,” “charge,” “spin,” and “color” as if they were fundamental ingredients of reality.
But if we ask what these ingredients are, the definitions become circular. Mass is “resistance to force.” Charge is “that which sources an electric field.”
Before we can propose a universe built solely of electromagnetic fields, we must first demonstrate that “mass” and “charge” are not primitive substances that we are failing to include. They are, historically and mathematically, operational parameters—invented to describe motion, not to explain existence.
The concept of matter long predates the concept of mass. To the ancients (Democritus, Aristotle), matter was an ontological category: “that which exists.”
Isaac Newton changed this. In the Principia (1687), he introduced mass not to explain the constitution of the universe, but to predict the motion of objects within it. He needed a parameter to quantify the inertia observed by Galileo—the tendency of an object to resist changes in velocity.
Newton defined “quantity of motion” (momentum, \(p\)) as the product of this parameter (\(m\)) and velocity (\(v\)):
\[ p = m v. \]
Inertia was taken as a primitive fact. Newton gave us the rule to calculate it (\(F = dp/dt\)), but not the reason for it. As Richard Feynman later famously remarked to his son regarding a ball in a wagon: “That is called inertia, but nobody knows why.”
This operational definition was so successful that it survived the quantum revolution. In Schrödinger’s wave equation, mass appears merely as a constant in the denominator of the kinetic energy operator:
\[ \hat{T} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2. \]
Even in quantum mechanics, mass describes how the wave moves, not what the wave is. It remains a bookkeeping parameter inserted to make the units of momentum work.
However, nature provides a glaring exception to the rule that momentum requires mass.
Light is experimentally observed to be massless (\(m=0\)). Yet, light exerts pressure. It strikes objects; it transfers momentum.
In classical mechanics (\(p=mv\)), a massless object should have zero momentum. But in electromagnetism and relativity, momentum is revealed to be a function of energy, not mass. For a photon:
\[ p = \frac{E}{c}. \]
This equation is the crack in the foundation of the materialist view. It proves that “stuff” does not need mass to exist or to act dynamically on the world. It only needs energy and movement.
If a massless field can carry momentum, the necessity for “mass” as a primitive building block evaporates. “Mass” is simply the behavior of trapped energy.
If matter is to be composed of electromagnetic fields, we must address the most common objection: Linearity.
Classically, two light beams crossing each other are said not to interact. They obey the Principle of Superposition. If light passes through light without scattering, how can it tie itself into a stable knot (a particle)?
This objection rests on a misunderstanding of what “superposition” implies.
When light enters a material (like glass), it slows down. The standard explanation is that the light polarizes the atoms in the glass (\(P = \chi E\)), creating a secondary field that interferes with the first, effectively slowing the phase velocity.
But what is the “atom” in this picture? It is a collection of bound charged particles. And what are charged particles? In our view, they are localized electromagnetic structures.
Therefore, the “interaction of light with matter” is, at its root, the interaction of light with light.
Standard Maxwell theory already allows for this interaction via the energy density. The energy density of a field is quadratic:
\[ u \propto |\mathbf{E}|^2. \]
If we superimpose two waves \(\mathbf{E}_1\) and \(\mathbf{E}_2\), the total energy is not merely the sum of the individual energies. It contains a cross-term:
\[ |\mathbf{E}_1 + \mathbf{E}_2|^2 = |\mathbf{E}_1|^2 + |\mathbf{E}_2|^2 + 2\mathbf{E}_1 \cdot \mathbf{E}_2. \]
This cross-term (\(2\mathbf{E}_1 \cdot \mathbf{E}_2\)) represents a real redistribution of energy and momentum in the region of overlap. Superposition does not mean non-interaction; it means the interaction is handled by the energy configuration of the combined system.
In a Maxwell Universe, the “material” that refracts the light is the field itself.
Finally, we consider Charge. Since Coulomb, charge has been treated as the “source” of the field (\(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \rho\)).
But the source-free equation \(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0\) forbids only divergence (point sources). It does not forbid structure.
A smoke ring is a stable aerodynamic structure that exists within the air, made of the air, yet distinct from the surrounding still air. It requires no “solid core” to sustain it.
Similarly, an electromagnetic knot is a stable structure within the field.
When we measure “charge” from a distance, we are measuring the intensity of the field flux through a surface. If we enclose a topological circulation of energy (a knot) within a sphere of radius \(r\), the total conserved circulation is projected onto a surface area of \(4\pi r^2\).
The intensity necessarily falls off as:
\[ \text{Intensity} \propto \frac{1}{r^2}. \]
We call this “Charge.” But there is no primitive substance at the center—only the topology of the field itself.
One of the greatest achievements of early quantum theory was predicting the discrete energy levels of the hydrogen atom, known as the Rydberg series.
In 1704, Isaac Newton showed, using a prism, that all the colors of the rainbow are contained in sunlight.
When doing the same experiment with a neon light, or with hydrogen—the most abundant element in the known universe—it is easily seen that neither neon light nor hydrogen light contain all the colors as sunlight apparently did.
Instead, they emit light only at very specific, sharply defined colors. These gaps in the spectrum constitute the “spectral signature” of the element.
Here, color is not a representation of energy — it is energy, directly perceived as frequency. If we examine closely (naked eye is enough) the spectrum of sunlight, it is readily evident that it is not “continuous”, and that there are gaps in the visible spectrum of light.
These discrete features were the anomaly that gave rise to “quantum mechanics,” as classical electromagnetism seemingly offered no explanation for why an atom should radiate in steps rather than in a continuous sweep.
Long before the internal structure of the atom was understood, experiments showed that glowing hydrogen does not emit a continuous rainbow of light. Instead, it emits light only at very specific, sharply defined colors.
In 1888, the Swedish physicist Johannes Rydberg found that these colors—that is, electromagnetic frequencies—follow a simple mathematical pattern involving integers \(n = 1, 2, 3, \dots\):
\[ E_n \propto \frac{1}{n^2}. \]
The standard explanation, developed later by Bohr and Schrödinger, ties this scaling to the electrostatic interaction between an electron and a proton. In that planetary picture, larger \(n\) corresponds to the electron occupying an orbit farther from the nucleus.
However, the formula itself contains no reference to distance, radius, or geometry—only to the integer \(n\).
More precisely, observed spectral lines correspond to transitions between configurations. The emitted radiation carries the exact energy difference:
\[ \Delta E \propto \frac{1}{m^2}-\frac{1}{n^2}, \qquad m>n. \]
We interpret the \(1/n^2\) factor not as a change in spatial size, but as a reorganization of a fixed total energy into progressively finer internal structure.
Imagine a flat rectangular sheet of paper. Draw one vertical line and one horizontal line, each connecting opposite edges. They cross in the middle and divide the sheet into \(2\times2=4\) cells.
More generally, if we keep adding lines the sheet is then partitioned into
\[ n\times n = n^2 \text{ cells}. \]
With no internal lines (\(n=1\)), the sheet corresponds to a ground configuration with energy \(E_1\). As \(n\) increases, the total area stays the same, but it is subdivided into smaller and smaller regions.
If the total energy is conserved and distributed uniformly across the \(n^2\) cells, the energy per cell scales as
\[ E_n \propto \frac{E_1}{n^2}. \]
In this abstract but constrained way, the Rydberg scaling appears without invoking particles, wavefunctions, or force balance. Discrete levels are simply discrete global subdivisions of a conserved quantity: energy.
To understand the physical basis of this grid, we must look at the topology of confinement.
Return to the flat napkin. First, identify and glue together one pair of opposite edges. The flat napkin becomes a tube. Lines that originally ended on one edge now reappear continuously on the opposite edge.
Next, take this tube and identify its two circular ends. Gluing these ends together produces a closed surface with no boundary—a Torus.
Any lines drawn on the original napkin become closed paths on the torus. However, they form closed loops only if they match their own position when crossing an identified edge. This requirement ensures global continuity of the grid.
In a source-free Maxwell universe, electromagnetic fields on this surface must satisfy these continuity conditions along the two independent cycles of the torus: the poloidal (around the ring) and toroidal (along the tube) directions.
This imposes a discretization condition on the wavelength. Along a closed loop of length \(L\), the field must satisfy:
\[ n \lambda = L. \]
These are the same conditions that produce standing waves on a string, now applied to a closed surface with two independent winding numbers.
In this view, the Rydberg series does not describe an electron moving to a larger orbit in space. It describes the electromagnetic field reorganizing itself into progressively finer standing-wave patterns.
These patterns are self-consistent knots of counter-propagating electromagnetic energy flux, fixed by continuity.
Increasing \(n\) corresponds to increasing the number of global windings on the surface. More windings impose more nodes on the same conserved topology.
Transitions between levels are therefore related to the difference in cell sizes (or effective tube widths) between two subdivisions. To move from level \(n\) to level \(m\), the system must supply exactly the energy difference required to “patch” the geometry from one winding density to another:
\[ \Delta E = E_1 \left( \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{1}{m^2} \right). \]
The photon is the packet of energy that facilitates this topological patching.
The ground state (\(n=1\)) is unique. It represents the configuration where the torus is composed of a single coherent cell—the state where the flux tube is pulled as tight as topologically possible. As we shall see, the geometric limit of this “tightness” is what determines the coupling constant of the universe.
Finally, we must account for the appearance of electric charge. In a source-free universe,
\[ \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0 \]
everywhere. No electric field originates from a point. How, then, does a particle appear to have charge?
Consider the standing wave on the torus. The field lines wrap around the two independent cycles, characterized by the winding numbers \((m,n)\). These windings represent closed circulations of electromagnetic energy.
At any local patch of the surface, the field lines entering and leaving balance so that the net flux vanishes. However, the global circulation -for example, circulation tangent to the surface- does not vanish.
Now, enclose this configuration within a spherical surface of radius \(r\) much larger than the torus itself.
The total electromagnetic circulation (the “topological charge, \((m,n)\)”) is a conserved quantity fixed by the winding numbers \(m\) and \(n\). This energy, thought as a bulb turned-off (no radiation, no point source), is constant; so we can think that it’s energy is spread evenly around it. This energy, spread accross the area of the sensor we use to measure it (the eye is a sensory organ, “a sensor”, as well) is what we measure as a \(1/r^2\) dependence.
As this fixed quantity is projected through a sphere whose area grows as \(4\pi r^2\), the observed field intensity necessarily falls off as:
\[ \text{Intensity} \propto \frac{1}{r^2}. \]
This reproduces the phenomenology of charge.
In this view, charge is not a primitive substance added to the universe. It is an effective, topological quantity: the far-field signature of closed electromagnetic circulation.
We have established that matter can be viewed as a knotted, self-consistent electromagnetic field. We have also seen that such configurations naturally possess inertia and discrete spectra.
But a critical question remains: Why doesn’t the energy leak out?
In standard Maxwell theory, light waves spread. A localized packet of energy in a vacuum tends to disperse. What mechanism confines this energy into a stable, persistent knot that we recognize as an electron or a proton?
The answer lies in Impedance.
The vacuum is not an empty stage; it has rigid electromagnetic properties. It resists the formation of fields. This resistance is quantified by the ratio between \(\mu_0\) and \(\epsilon_0\), also known as the “Characteristic Impedance of Free Space”, \(Z_0\):
\[ Z_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}} \approx 376.7 \, \Omega. \]
Any electromagnetic wave traveling through the vacuum is governed by this ratio between the electric field \(|\mathbf{E}|\) and the magnetic field \(|\mathbf{H}|\).
Now, consider our knotted configuration—the torus. This object acts effectively as a waveguide: a closed loop in which electromagnetic energy circulates.
Like any transmission line or waveguide, this knot has its own intrinsic impedance, \(Z_{\text{knot}}\), determined entirely by its geometry (the ratio of the toroidal to poloidal radii).
It is well understood that when an electromagnetic wave encounters a boundary between two media of different impedances, a portion of the wave is reflected, and a portion is transmitted.
If the impedance match is perfect, energy flows freely (a boundary is defined by impedance mismatch). If the impedance mismatch is infinite, the reflection is perfect.
For a particle to be stable—to be “self-contained”—the energy circulating within the knot must be trapped by a massive impedance mismatch with the surrounding vacuum. This is analogous to Total Internal Reflection in optics. The field “bounces” off the boundary of its energetic meander, unable to flow away.
However, the reflection is never quite perfect. If it were, matter would be completely decoupled from the rest of the universe—invisible and intangible.
There is a slight leakage. A tiny fraction of the internal energy couples to the vacuum. We perceive this leakage as the ability of the particle to interact: its charge.
This brings us to one of the most famous and mysterious numbers in physics: the Fine Structure Constant, \(\alpha \approx 1/137\).
In the standard view, \(\alpha\) is an arbitrary parameter that sets the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. In a Maxwell Universe, \(\alpha\) has a geometric interpretation. It is the ratio of the impedance of the vacuum to the impedance of the knot.
Using the Von Klitzing constant \(R_K = h/e^2\), we can express \(\alpha\) as:
\[ \alpha = \frac{Z_0}{2 R_K}. \]
If we identify the intrinsic impedance of the fundamental knot (the electron) with the quantum of resistance \(R_K\), the fine structure constant becomes simply a measure of the impedance mismatch:
\[ \alpha = \frac{Z_0}{2 Z_{\text{knot}}}. \]
Matter is stable because \(Z_{\text{knot}}\) is vastly different from \(Z_0\). The “leakage” that manages to bridge this gap is what we call the electric charge \(e\).
Thus, stability and interaction are two sides of the same coin: the impedance contrast between the geometry of matter and the geometry of the vacuum.
In the preceding chapter, we showed that discrete spectral structure—exemplified by the Rydberg series—arises naturally when electromagnetic fields are confined by global continuity conditions. Discreteness emerged not from particles, forces, or quantization rules, but from topology: the requirement that a field defined on a compact configuration match itself after completing closed cycles.
At that stage, the discussion concerned only internal structure: how energy redistributes within a self-confined electromagnetic configuration. Yet a question remains unavoidable. If such configurations are to be identified with ordinary matter, how do they move? How do they carry momentum, resist acceleration, and obey the conservation laws that govern everyday mechanics?
The answer cannot be imported from Newtonian axioms or particle models, because neither exists in a Maxwell Universe. If mechanics is to arise at all, it must arise from electromagnetic field dynamics alone.
The purpose of the present chapter is to show that it does—inevitably.
In a Maxwell Universe, the electromagnetic field is the only fundamental entity. There are no particles, no intrinsic masses, and no independent mechanical postulates. All physical objects are structured, self-confined electromagnetic field configurations evolving according to the source-free Maxwell equations:
\[ \nabla\cdot\vec{E}=0,\qquad \nabla\cdot\vec{B}=0, \]
\[ \nabla\times\vec{E}=-\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}, \qquad \nabla\times\vec{B}=\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t}. \]
These four equations supply the entire dynamics. What we call “matter” is nothing more than a persistent solution of these equations.
Maxwell’s theory assigns energy and momentum directly to fields. The local electromagnetic energy density is
\[ u=\tfrac12\bigl(\epsilon_0|\vec{E}|^2+\mu_0^{-1}|\vec{B}|^2\bigr), \]
and the flow of this energy is given by the Poynting vector,
\[ \vec{S}=\mu_0^{-1}\,\vec{E}\times\vec{B}. \]
Momentum is not an added concept; it is already present in the field. The momentum density is
\[ \vec{g}=\frac{\vec{S}}{c^2}=\epsilon_0\,\vec{E}\times\vec{B}. \]
For any localized electromagnetic configuration occupying a region \(V\), the total momentum is therefore
\[ \vec{P}=\int_V \vec{g}\,d^3x. \]
No mass parameter has been introduced.
The conservation of momentum follows directly from Maxwell dynamics. Differentiating the momentum density and using Maxwell’s equations yields the local balance law
\[ \frac{\partial\vec{g}}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot\mathbf{T}=0, \]
where \(\mathbf{T}\) is the Maxwell stress tensor. Integrating over a volume \(V\) gives
\[ \frac{d\vec{P}}{dt} = -\!\int_{\partial V}\mathbf{T}\cdot d\vec{A}. \]
Momentum changes only when electromagnetic stress crosses the boundary. For a self-confined configuration whose external fields cancel on \(\partial V\), the surface integral vanishes and \(\vec{P}\) remains constant.
Momentum conservation is therefore not a postulate, but a consequence of source-free Maxwell dynamics.
Define the total electromagnetic energy in \(V\),
\[ U=\int_V u\,d^3x, \]
and the center of energy,
\[ \vec{R}(t)=\frac{1}{U}\int_V \vec{r}\,u\,d^3x. \]
Electromagnetic field theory gives the exact relation
\[ \vec{P}=\frac{U}{c^{2}}\,\frac{d\vec{R}}{dt}. \]
If \(\vec{P}\) is constant, then \(d\vec{R}/dt\) is constant. A localized electromagnetic configuration therefore moves at uniform velocity unless acted upon by external electromagnetic stress.
This is inertia.
From local energy conservation,
\[ \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot\vec{S}=0, \]
we define the enclosed energy of the self-sustaining electromagnetic configuration \(U(t)\) and its energy centroid \(\vec{R}(t)\).
Differentiating the numerator of the centroid definition:
\[ \frac{d}{dt}\int_V \vec{r}\,u\,d^3x =\int_V \vec{r}\,\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\,d^3x =-\int_V \vec{r}\,\nabla\cdot\vec{S}\,d^3x. \]
Using the vector identity \(\nabla\cdot(\vec{r}\,\vec{S})=\vec{S}+\vec{r}\,\nabla\cdot\vec{S}\), we rewrite the integral and apply the divergence theorem:
\[ \frac{d}{dt}\int_V \vec{r}\,u\,d^3x =\int_V \vec{S}\,d^3x-\oint_{\partial V} \vec{r}\,(\vec{S}\cdot d\vec{A}). \]
For a self-confined configuration (no net energy flux across \(\partial V\)), the surface term vanishes. Using \(\vec{P} = (1/c^2) \int \vec{S} d^3x\), we obtain:
\[ \frac{d}{dt}\int_V \vec{r}\,u\,d^3x=c^2\vec{P}. \]
Finally, differentiating \(\vec{R}\) gives the center-of-energy identity:
\[ \boxed{\;\vec{P}=\frac{U}{c^{2}}\,\frac{d\vec{R}}{dt}\;} \]
Thus the translational velocity of the configuration is not an assumption but a ratio of conserved field integrals.
Define the inertial mass of the bounded configuration by
\[ m=\frac{U}{c^{2}}. \]
Differentiating \(\vec{P}\) yields the general momentum-balance law:
\[ \vec{F}_{\text{ext}} =\frac{d\vec{P}}{dt} =\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{dU}{dt}\,\vec{v} +m\,\vec{a}. \]
For a closed, self-sustained configuration where \(dU/dt=0\), the motion of the center of energy obeys identically:
\[ \vec{F}_{\text{ext}}=m\,\vec{a}. \]
Inertia is therefore the persistence of field momentum. Mechanics is the natural behavior of structured electromagnetic fields.
In the preceding analysis, we treated a localized electromagnetic configuration as a given. We must now explain why such a configuration can exist at all, given the tendency of electromagnetic waves to disperse.
In a Maxwell Universe, there is no container and no material substrate. Any mechanism of confinement must arise from the field’s own dynamics. We call this mechanism self-refraction.
Refraction does not require matter; it requires a phase-delayed electromagnetic response. In a Maxwell Universe, this response arises from the field configuration itself.
A self-sustained electromagnetic structure continuously generates secondary electromagnetic fields through its internal dynamics. These secondary fields are phase-delayed relative to the primary energy flow. An electromagnetic wave propagating within such a configuration therefore propagates through an electromagnetic environment created by the configuration itself.
The configuration acts as its own effective medium.
In a Maxwell Universe, refraction is expected to happen without matter; it requires relative phase structure within the electromagnetic field that redirects energy flow through interference.
No modification of Maxwell’s equations is required. The equations remain linear and source-free everywhere. The apparent bending of energy flow arises from interference between components of a single self-consistent Maxwell solution.
Writing the total field as a superposition \(\vec{E}=\sum \vec{E}_k\) and \(\vec{B}=\sum \vec{B}_k\), the Poynting vector becomes:
\[ \vec{S} =\frac{1}{\mu_0}\sum_{k,\ell}\vec{E}_k\times\vec{B}_\ell . \]
The cross terms encode the redistribution of electromagnetic energy and momentum that continuously redirects propagation, producing closed circulation without invoking nonlinearity or an external medium.
A self-sustained electromagnetic configuration persists because its own fields generate the delayed response required to redirect subsequent propagation. The configuration exists not despite dispersion, but because dispersion is exactly balanced by self-refraction.
Matter, in this view, is not light trapped by an external medium. Matter is electromagnetic energy whose own self-generated field structure continuously refracts it into closed, self-consistent circulation.
A common objection to a source-free theory is the loss of standard electrodynamics. If there are no point charges (\(\rho\)) and no currents (\(J\)), what happens to the Lorentz Force Law?
\[ \mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}) \]
In standard physics, this law is an axiom that tells “matter” how to move in a “field.” In a Maxwell Universe, there is no distinction between matter and field. Therefore, the Lorentz force must emerge as a Second Order effect—an approximation of the interaction between a localized field knot and a background field.
We must distinguish between the fundamental reality and the effective behavior.
At the fundamental level, there are only fields obeying superposition. When an electron (a knotted field \(\mathbf{E}_e, \mathbf{B}_e\)) moves through an external magnetic field (\(\mathbf{B}_{ext}\)), the fields simply add vectorially:
\[ \mathbf{B}_{total} = \mathbf{B}_e + \mathbf{B}_{ext} \]
There is no “force” pushing a solid object. There is simply a redistribution of energy density. On one side of the knot, the fields may align (constructive interference), increasing energy density/pressure. On the other side, they may oppose (destructive interference), decreasing pressure.
Because the knot is stable, it acts as a coherent unit. The net imbalance of radiation pressure caused by the interference pattern results in a drift of the entire knot. To an observer who cannot see the internal topology, this drift looks exactly like a point particle responding to a force. This effective behavior is Second Order Electromagnetism.
We can visualize this using an electromagnetic analog to the Bernoulli Principle or the Magnus Effect.
Consider a vortex in a fluid (analogous to our magnetic flux loop). If this vortex sits in a still fluid, the pressure is symmetric. But if the vortex moves, or if the background fluid flows past it, the velocities add on one side and subtract on the other.
The vortex experiences a lift force perpendicular to the flow.
In our electromagnetic case, we look at the Maxwell Stress Tensor (\(\sigma\)). The force density is the divergence of the stress tensor. When we integrate this over the volume of the knot in the presence of an external field, the cross-terms in the energy density (\(2\mathbf{E}_e \cdot \mathbf{E}_{ext}\)) create a net flow of momentum.
\[ \frac{d\mathbf{P}}{dt} = \oint_{Surface} \overleftrightarrow{\sigma} \cdot d\mathbf{a} \]
The “Charge” \(q\) in the Lorentz equation is simply the coupling constant that summarizes the knot’s topology (its winding number). The “Force” is simply the net radiation pressure of the field on itself.
Thus, we arrive at a startling conclusion: Maxwell’s Equations with sources are the effective field theory of Maxwell’s Equations without sources.
When we zoom out and treat the knots as points, the topological constraints look like point charges (\(\rho\)), and the motion of the knots looks like current (\(J\)).
\[ \text{Fundamental:} \quad \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0 \quad (\text{Everywhere}) \]
\[ \Downarrow \text{ (Averaging over knots)} \]
\[ \text{Emergent:} \quad \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}_{avg} = \frac{\rho_{eff}}{\epsilon_0} \]
We have not lost standard physics; we have merely explained it. The “Second Order” is the familiar world of particles and forces, floating on top of the “First Order” world of pure, interfering field geometry.
We have identified the electron not as a point particle, but as the fundamental electromagnetic knot—specifically, the (3,2) Trefoil Knot. It is a single flux tube wound into a toroidal standing wave.
It is the simplest persistent solution to the source-free Maxwell equations that is topologically distinct from a simple loop. This specific topology (\(n=1\) in the knot hierarchy) provides two critical physical properties:
Chirality: The Trefoil knot is handed; it has a mirror image. This gives a geometric definition to antimatter. The positron is simply the enantiomer (mirror topology) of the electron.
Topological Locking: unlike a simple unknotted loop, which can shrink and dissipate, a Trefoil cannot be untied without cutting the field lines. This provides the topological protection required for the electron’s immense stability.
However, the universe is not composed solely of electrons. It is dominated by mass, and that mass resides almost entirely in the atomic nucleus: protons and neutrons.
If the electron is a “knot,” the proton cannot simply be a heavier knot. Its properties—specifically its composite nature and its immense stability—require a different type of topological organization.
In a Maxwell Universe, the distinction between leptons (electrons) and hadrons (protons) is the distinction between Knots and Links.
Standard high-energy physics describes the proton as a composite particle made of three “quarks.” These quarks possess fractional charge and are bound together by the “Strong Force” mediated by gluons.
A peculiar feature of this force is confinement: quarks are never found in isolation. If one attempts to pull a quark out of a proton, the energy required grows until a new particle-antiparticle pair is created, snapping the bond.
In our framework, we must derive this behavior without introducing new forces or new particles. We must ask: How can an electromagnetic field configuration have parts that are geometrically distinct but physically inseparable?
Consider the difference between a knot and a link.
A Knot (like the Trefoil) is a single closed curve embedded in space. It represents a single, coherent flux tube.
A Link is a collection of two or more disjoint closed curves that are entangled such that they cannot be separated without passing one curve through another.
Borromean rings
If we model the proton as a composite structure, we model it as a system of multiple electromagnetic flux tubes linked together.
This immediately solves the problem of confinement. The components (the flux tubes) are distinct; they can be counted (1, 2, 3…). Yet, they are not held together by a “force” that pulls them. They are held together by topology.
To separate two linked rings, one must cut one of the rings. In electromagnetic terms, “cutting” a field line violates continuity (\(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0\)). It requires the creation of a singular boundary or the injection of “infinite” energy to rupture the topology.
Thus, confinement is not a dynamic constraint; it is a geometric one. The parts of a proton are not stuck together; they are threaded through each other.
Why three quarks? Why not two or four?
Topology offers a compelling candidate for the stability of the proton: the Borromean Rings.
In a Borromean link, three rings are linked together in such a way that no two rings are linked to each other. The system is held together only by the collective presence of all three. If any single ring is cut or removed, the other two immediately fall apart.
This mirrors the stability of the nucleon. It suggests that the proton is a Prime Link of three electromagnetic flux loops.
The “charge” of the proton (\(+e\)) is the net topological winding number of this composite system. While the internal loops may carry partial or fractional windings (analogous to fractional quark charges), the global topology viewed from the far field sums to a single integer unit of circulation, matching the electron but with opposite helicity.
The most striking difference between the proton and the electron is mass. The proton is approximately 1,836 times more massive than the electron.
In a Maxwell Universe, mass is energy (\(m = U/c^2\)). Energy, in a field configuration, is a function of curvature of field lines.
\[ u \propto |\nabla \mathbf{E}|^2 + |\nabla \mathbf{B}|^2 \]
A single torus (the electron) can relax into a relatively “fat,” comfortable shape with moderate curvature.
A linked system, however, is constrained. For three flux tubes to thread through each other within a volume of femtometer scale, they must be twisted and compressed significantly. The topology forces the field lines into regions of extreme curvature and high frequency.
High curvature implies high energy density.
The proton is massive not because it contains “heavy substance,” but because it is a knot of extreme geometric complexity. The energy required to sustain the topology of three interlocked loops is naturally orders of magnitude higher than the energy of a single loop.
This topological framework offers a natural classification for the “zoo” of subatomic particles discovered in the 20th century. In the Standard Model, these are organized by abstract quantum numbers. In a Maxwell Universe, they are organized by geometric complexity.
The leptons correspond to single, self-entangled flux tubes. * The Electron: The fundamental (3,2) Trefoil. * Generations (Muon, Tau): These are not different knots, but higher-energy harmonic excitations of the same knot topology. Just as a guitar string has overtones, the flux tube can vibrate at higher geometric frequencies. These states are heavier (more curvature) and unstable, naturally decaying back to the ground state (electron).
Mesons, composed of a quark and anti-quark, correspond to 2-component links (such as the Hopf Link). Unlike the Borromean 3-link, a simple chain of two loops is topologically less constrained. The loops can slide against each other and annihilate their opposing helicities more easily. This geometric fragility explains why mesons are inherently unstable and short-lived compared to the proton.
Baryons are 3-component links. The Borromean property provides a unique “locking” mechanism that 2-component links lack. This explains why the proton is the only stable hadron. All other baryons can be viewed as topological variants or excited states that eventually settle into this most stable, locked configuration.
In this view, the “Strong Nuclear Force” is not a fundamental interaction distinct from electromagnetism. It is the contact pressure of flux tubes pushing against each other.
When two nucleons (proton and neutron) come into close proximity, their internal flux loops can align or exchange windings—a topological analog to the exchange of mesons. The “Residual Strong Force” that binds the nucleus is the electromagnetic diffraction pattern arising from these complex, short-range linkages.
We therefore arrive at a unified ontology:
There is only one field. Its complexity determines whether we see it as light, matter, or nuclear force.
This topological taxonomy provides an immediate answer to a question that the Standard Model must treat as an axiom: Why can Leptons exist freely, but Quarks cannot?
We can test this by conducting a thought experiment on the “debris” left behind when we break a particle.
Case A: Breaking a Borromean Link of Trefoils
Imagine a composite particle made of three linked Trefoil knots (three electrons linked together). If we break one of the links, the system falls apart. The result is three separate, independent Trefoil knots. Since the Trefoil is a stable topology (it cannot untie itself), we would see a spray of three stable particles (electrons) flying apart. This is not what we see when we smash a proton.
Case B: Breaking a Borromean Link of Unknots (The Proton)
Now consider the proton as defined above: three simple loops (Unknots) linked in a Borromean configuration. If we break the link (overcoming the immense “Strong Force” tension), the system falls apart. The result is three separate Unknots. A single, unknotted flux loop is topologically unstable. Without the locking mechanism of the link or the self-entanglement of the Trefoil, it essentially has no “identity.” It can untwist, shrink, and dissipate its energy into the vacuum field immediately.
The Geometric Conclusion:
Leptons are Knots: They are stable in isolation because their stability comes from self-tying.
Quarks are Unknots: They are stable only when linked. In isolation, they physically dissolve.
Thus, “Confinement” is not a magical force that pulls quarks back together; it is the observation that a quark (an unknot) simply ceases to exist as a localized object the moment it is untied from its partners.
title: A Maxwell Universe – Gravity and the Dielectric Cosmos date: 2026-01-01 11:30 —
We have established that “mass” is simply a region of high electromagnetic energy density, knotted into a stable topology. We have also established, via the principle of superposition, that electromagnetic fields do interact via their energy densities.
This leads to a direct mechanism for Gravity that does not require curved spacetime, but rather a Variable Speed of Light.
In standard optics, light bends when it passes from a medium of one density to another (refraction). It bends towards the region of higher index of refraction (slower speed).
In a Maxwell Universe, a massive object (a proton, a star) is a concentrated knot of energy. This high energy density locally modifies the electromagnetic properties of the surrounding vacuum. It creates a “halo” of higher dielectric permittivity (\(\epsilon\)) around the object.
Since the speed of light is defined as \(c = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}\), a local increase in energy density acts as an effective increase in \(\epsilon\).
Light slows down near matter.
As a result, any wavefront passing near a massive object will bend towards it, not because space is curved, but because the “optical density” of the vacuum is higher near the mass.
This recovers the predictions of General Relativity (the bending of light, the Shapiro delay) using purely optical analogies. Gravity is not a separate force; it is the Refraction of Light by Light.
If gravity is refraction, then the vacuum is not “empty” geometry. It is a physical medium—a dielectric.
This resolves the paradox of Action at a Distance. Objects do not pull on each other across a void.
Object A (a star) stresses the dielectric vacuum around it, creating a gradient in the refractive index.
Object B (a planet) sits in this gradient.
The internal energy flow of Object B—the very light that composes its atoms—refracts in response to this gradient.
The entire knot drifts toward the region of slower light speed, just as a light beam bends into glass. Inertia is the resistance of the knot to moving; Gravity is the drift of the knot caused by the gradient of the medium.
This dielectric model offers an immediate solution to the problem of Dark Matter.
Astronomers observe that galaxies rotate too fast to be held together by their visible mass alone. The standard solution is to postulate a halo of invisible, non-interacting “dark matter” that provides the extra gravity.
In a Maxwell Universe, gravity is caused by energy density. However, visible matter is not the only source of energy density.
Consider the vacuum of space. It is not dark; it is filled with light. At any point in the universe, light from billions of distant stars is passing through. We only “see” the tiny fraction of rays that happen to be directed straight at our telescopes. The rest—the light crisscrossing the void in every other direction—is invisible to us, yet it is physically present.
This Background Flux contributes to the total local energy density (\(u \propto E^2\)).
Because this background energy density exists, the refractive index of the vacuum is higher than zero everywhere, and it clumps around galaxies where the stellar flux is densest. This invisible sea of light increases the effective dielectric constant of the galaxy, increasing the refraction (gravity) without adding visible mass.
“Dark Matter” is simply the weight of the light we cannot see.
Finally, this view challenges the consensus that the universe is expanding.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (Redshift). The standard interpretation is the Doppler Effect: galaxies are moving away from us. To explain why this expansion is accelerating, physics invented Dark Energy.
However, this conclusion rests on a single, unproven postulate: that the speed of light is universally constant over cosmological distances.
In a Maxwell Universe, the vacuum is a dielectric medium with a non-zero impedance. Light traversing billions of light-years of this “dielectric ocean” does not travel at the theoretical maximum speed of a void (\(c\)). It travels at the effective speed of the medium (\(v = c/n\)).
If the density of the universe (the background field) affects the refractive index, then light from distant sources is delayed relative to our expectations. When we observe this delay, but we mathematically insist that \(c\) is constant and the vacuum is empty, our equations break.
To balance the equation \(v = d/t\) when \(t\) is larger than expected (due to the dielectric slowing), we are forced to conclude that \(d\) (distance) is increasing.
The universe appears to expand only because we are viewing it through a lens, but calculating as if the glass were absent. Dark Energy is not a mysterious force pushing the universe apart; it is a calibration error caused by ignoring the optical density of the vacuum.
If we return to the logic of the atom, we find a strong argument against both the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
We established earlier that particles (knots) are stable because they are impedance-matched to the vacuum. They exist in a balance between the internal pressure of their topology and the external impedance of the field.
Why should the universe be any different?
In a Maxwell Universe, there is no “outside” for the universe to expand into. The cosmos is not a bubble of high pressure expanding into a void; it is the void itself, saturated with field.
Just as the electron finds a stable radius where self-refraction balances dispersion, the universe likely exists in a state of Global Impedance Equilibrium. It is neither contracting nor expanding; it is “ringing” at the resonant frequency of its total energy content.
Finally, we must ask: if the universe were expanding, could we even know it?
Standard cosmology assumes we are distinct from the space we occupy—that we are rigid observers holding rigid rulers, watching the fabric of space stretch between galaxies.
But in a Maxwell Universe, we are the fabric.
Our bodies, our eyes, our telescopes, and our atoms are made of the same electromagnetic loops as the distant stars. The “ruler” we use to measure distance is defined by the wavelength of light and the radius of the atom.
If the background energy density of the universe were to change (causing an expansion or contraction), the properties of the vacuum (\(\epsilon_0, \mu_0\)) would change. Consequently, the speed of light (\(c\)) and the size of atoms (the Bohr radius) would change in exact proportion.
To us—electromagnetic beings embedded in an electromagnetic substrate—the universe is necessarily scale-less. We cannot measure the absolute size of the container because we are painted onto the canvas.
The universe appears static not just because it is stable, but because any global change scales the observer along with the observed. We are left with a cosmos that is infinite, eternal, and—from the inside—perfectly still.
Throughout this text, we have argued that mass is an operational parameter—a coefficient of change—rather than a primitive substance. To see why this distinction matters, it helps to look at how Isaac Newton actually formulated his dynamics.
Modern textbooks condense Newton’s Second Law into the crisp algebraic equation
\[ F = ma. \]
Newton does not present the law in this algebraic form. In the Principia he states it verbally:
“The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed…” 1
And he frames the whole work in a classical geometric style. Newton even says explicitly why he does this:
“…to avoid disputes about the method of fluxions, I have composed the demonstrations… in a geometrical way…” 2
So the Principia is not “algebra-first physics.” It is geometry-first physics, with the calculus largely kept out of view.
Newton’s dynamics are powered by a flow-based view of quantities. In his own words (in the intended preface / fluxional framing):
“Quantities increasing by continuous flow we call fluents, the speeds of flowing we call fluxions and the momentary increments we call moments.” 3
This is the stance: reality is described as generation by flow. To see the engine of this discovery, we must look at the “moment” (\(o\))—an infinitely small interval of time.
When Newton derived relationships, he did so by letting time flow forward by this tiny moment. For example, to find the rate of change of a quantity \(y = x^2\), he would increment the fluent \(x\) by its momentary change \(\dot{x}o\):
\[ (y + \dot{y}o) = (x + \dot{x}o)^2 \]
Expanding this yields:
\[ y + \dot{y}o = x^2 + 2x\dot{x}o + (\dot{x}o)^2 \]
Subtracting the original state (\(y=x^2\)) leaves the change:
\[ \dot{y}o = 2x\dot{x}o + \dot{x}^2 o^2 \]
Dividing by the tiny time interval \(o\):
\[ \dot{y} = 2x\dot{x} + \dot{x}^2 o \]
Finally, Newton argued that as the moment \(o\) vanishes (becomes “evanescent”), the last term disappears, leaving the exact dynamic relationship:
\[ \dot{y} = 2x\dot{x} \]
That is exactly the intuition behind the “moment” computation: take the relation, advance by a vanishing moment, and keep only what survives as the moment goes to zero.
Newton introduces “quantity of matter” (mass) as a measurable factor that lets motion be accounted for consistently. His basic operational definition of matter already reads like a recipe:
“Quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and bulk conjointly.” 4
Then, crucially, he defines quantity of motion (momentum) as a product-like measure:
“The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity and quantity of matter conjointly.” 5
So mass is not introduced as mystical “stuff.” It enters as the coefficient needed so that “motion” (momentum) scales with velocity in the right way.
In that precise sense: dynamics comes first; mass is the invented coefficient that linearizes the bookkeeping of change.
In a Maxwell Universe, we return to this priority. The fundamental “flow” is electromagnetic energy–momentum flow. What we call “mass” is the effective resistance to changing that flow—arising when flux is knotted into a stable topology.
Throughout Part II, we treated the electron and proton as idealized, isolated structures—perfect knots vibrating in a vacuum. But in the macroscopic world, we deal with aggregates: trillions of knots bound together into atoms, molecules, and bulk matter.
This brings us to the phenomenon that birthed quantum mechanics: Black Body Radiation.
Classically, the “Ultraviolet Catastrophe” arose because standard theory predicted that a heated object should radiate infinite energy at high frequencies. Planck solved this by assuming energy comes in discrete packets (\(E=hf\)).
In a Maxwell Universe, we can derive this discreteness from the topology of the emitter itself.
We have defined a particle as a toroidal standing wave characterized by winding numbers \((m,n)\). Just as a bell has a fundamental tone and a specific series of overtones determined by its shape, a topological knot has a specific set of allowed vibrational modes.
It cannot vibrate at any frequency; it can only vibrate at frequencies that respect the continuity of its field lines.
When we heat an object, we are essentially pumping energy into these knots, exciting their higher-order geometric resonances. The object does not emit a random chaos of frequencies; it emits a superposition of the allowed vibrational modes of its constituent parts.
What we call “thermal radiation” is simply the Fourier decomposition of the collective electromagnetic circulation of the object.
The Emitters: The object is an assembly of toroidal knots and links. Each knot has a fundamental impedance and a set of harmonic resonances.
The Coupling: These knots are not isolated; they are electromagnetically coupled to their neighbors. They exchange energy, continuously perturbing each other’s field lines.
The Output: The “glow” of a hot object is the leakage of this internal vibrational energy into the vacuum.
Because the underlying topology is discrete (you cannot have a winding number of 1.5), the vibrational spectrum is necessarily discrete at the microscopic level. The smooth curve of the Planck distribution is simply the statistical envelope—the “noise profile”—of billions of distinct, quantized topological ringings.
This implies that every material has a unique “Flow Signature.”
While the general shape of the Black Body curve is universal (determined by the statistics of large numbers), the fine structure of the radiation depends on the specific geometric assembly of the atoms.
In standard physics, we view the atomic spectrum (sharp lines) and the thermal spectrum (smooth curve) as two different phenomena. In a Maxwell Universe, they are the same phenomenon at different scales.
Heat is not the kinetic motion of little billiard balls. Heat is topological noise. It is the electromagnetic cacophony of billions of field loops vibrating against each other, trying to maintain their geometry against the pressure of the influx of energy.
In the main text, we asserted that the Lorentz Force and Electric Charge are not fundamental axioms, but emergent properties of a source-free Maxwell field. This appendix provides the formal derivation of these second-order effects.
In standard electrodynamics, the Lorentz force \(\mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})\) is an axiom. In a Maxwell Universe, it is a theorem derived from the Conservation of Electromagnetic Momentum.
We define “Force” on a particle not as an external push, but as the rate of change of the momentum contained within the knot configuration.
\[ \mathbf{F}_{knot} \equiv \frac{d\mathbf{P}_{knot}}{dt} \]
This is governed by the momentum continuity equation. The change in momentum within a volume \(V\) is equal to the momentum flowing in through the surface minus the rate of change of the background field momentum:
\[ \frac{d\mathbf{P}_{mech}}{dt} = \oint_{\partial V} \mathbf{T} \cdot d\mathbf{a} - \frac{d}{dt} \int_V \epsilon_0 \mu_0 (\mathbf{S}) \, d^3x \]
where \(\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H}\) is the Poynting vector and \(\mathbf{T}\) is the Maxwell Stress Tensor.
We decompose the field into the Knot field (\(\mathbf{E}_k, \mathbf{H}_k\)) and the Background field (\(\mathbf{E}_0, \mathbf{H}_0\)). The Stress Tensor is quadratic. The self-terms integrate to zero for a stable particle, and the background terms integrate to zero as they pass through. The net driving force comes entirely from the Interaction Tensor:
\[ T_{ij}^{int} = \epsilon_0 (E_{k,i} E_{0,j} + E_{0,i} E_{k,j} - \delta_{ij} \mathbf{E}_k \cdot \mathbf{E}_0) + \dots \]
Consider the knot in its own rest frame (\(\mathbf{v}=0\)). We calculate the stress exerted by the background electric field \(\mathbf{E}_0\) on the knot. The force is the surface integral of the interaction stress:
\[ \mathbf{F}_{static} = \oint_{\partial V} \mathbf{T}^{int} \cdot d\mathbf{a} \]
Using the Divergence Theorem, we convert this surface integral into a volume integral of the divergence of the tensor. Using the vector identity
\[ \nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E}_k \mathbf{E}_0) = (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}_k)\mathbf{E}_0 + (\mathbf{E}_k \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{E}_0, \]
and assuming the background field \(\mathbf{E}_0\) is constant across the small volume of the knot (so \(\nabla \mathbf{E}_0 \approx 0\)):
\[ \mathbf{F}_{static} \approx \mathbf{E}_0 \int_V (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}_k) \, d^3x \]
Strictly speaking, in a source-free theory, \(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}_k = 0\) everywhere. However, as defined in Section 2, the particle possesses a Time-Averaged Vorticity Magnitude which behaves macroscopically as an effective density \(\rho_{eff}\).
Thus, the volume integral recovers the effective charge:
\[ \mathbf{F}_{static} \approx \mathbf{E}_0 \int \rho_{eff} dV = q \mathbf{E}_0 \]
This confirms that the “Electric Force” is the pressure of the background field acting on the effective density of the knot.
This emergent term arises strictly from motion. If the knot moves with velocity \(\mathbf{v}\) through a background magnetic field \(\mathbf{B}_0\), the momentum balance changes. The rate of change of momentum density includes a convective term:
\[ \frac{d\mathbf{P}}{dt} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{P}}{\partial t} + (\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{P} \]
Why this term matters: Think of this difference like watching a river. * The partial derivative \(\frac{\partial \mathbf{P}}{\partial t}\) is the change measured by a stationary sensor on the riverbank (Eulerian view). * The convective term \((\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{P}\) accounts for the fact that the water itself is moving.
Since our “particle” is not a fixed point in space but a moving configuration of field energy, we cannot just watch a fixed coordinate; we must follow the flow. The total change in momentum must account for the transport of the knot through the field.
The motion of the knot pushes its electric field profile \(\mathbf{E}_k\) through the background \(\mathbf{B}_0\). Using the relation between spatial gradients and time derivatives for a moving wave (\(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} = -\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla\)):
Derivation of the identity: This comes from the definition of a rigid shape moving through space. Consider a field profile \(F(x)\) moving with velocity \(v\). The value at any point is given by \(F(x - vt)\). Applying the chain rule: * Time slope: \(\frac{\partial F}{\partial t} = F' \cdot (-v)\) * Space slope: \(\nabla F = F' \cdot (1)\)
Therefore, for any traveling wave structure, time variation is simply spatial variation scaled by velocity: \(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} = -\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla\).
Substituting this into the Maxwell-Faraday law, the interaction yields a net momentum flux perpendicular to both velocity and field:
\[ \mathbf{F}_{mag} = q (\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}_0) \]
The “magnetic force” is simply the momentum transfer required for the electric geometry of the knot to translate through the magnetic geometry of the background.
Standard theory defines charge via divergence (\(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\)). In a source-free Maxwell Universe, \(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0\) everywhere, so the net vector flux through any closed surface is zero.
However, the amount of electromagnetic activity is not zero. We define “Charge” as the Time-Averaged Magnitude of the field curls.
We define the local Vorticity Vector \(\mathbf{C}\) as the curl of the electric field:
\[ \mathbf{C}(\mathbf{x}, t) = \nabla \times \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}, t) \]
This vector describes the instantaneous “spin” or circulation of the field.
If we simply integrate the vector \(\mathbf{C}\) over the volume of the knot, the result is zero. Because the knot is a standing wave, for every clockwise curl, there is a counter-clockwise curl elsewhere (or at a different phase of the cycle). The net directional circulation vanishes, just as the net current in an AC circuit is zero.
However, a washing machine full of turbulent water has zero net flow but non-zero Agitation. An AC circuit has zero net current but non-zero Power.
To measure the physical “substance” of the knot, we must measure the Magnitude of the agitation, regardless of direction. We define the Vorticity Density \(\Omega\) as the time-averaged magnitude of the curl:
\[ \Omega(\mathbf{x}) = \langle |\nabla \times \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}, t)| \rangle_t \]
This scalar field \(\Omega(\mathbf{x})\) represents the raw amount of electromagnetic “twist” or turbulence at any point.
We define the intrinsic “strength” of the particle as the volume integral of this density:
\[ \Gamma_{total} = \int_{Knot} \Omega(\mathbf{x}) \, d^3x \]
Since \(\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\), this quantity \(\Gamma_{total}\) is directly proportional to the total Oscillation Energy trapped in the standing wave.
is directly proportional to the total Oscillation Energy trapped in the standing wave.
An observer measures the knot from a distance \(r\). The total amount of agitation \(\Gamma_{total}\) is conserved. As this agitation projects outwards, it distributes over the surface area of the shell (\(4\pi r^2\)).
The instrument (a voltmeter) measures the Time-Averaged Intensity of the field impact on its sensor. Since the total integrated magnitude \(\Gamma_{total}\) is distributed over the growing sphere, the Surface Density of Vorticity Magnitude decays as:
\[ \sigma_{\Omega}(r) = \frac{\Gamma_{total}}{4\pi r^2} \]
We define the observable Charge \(q\) as the coefficient of this projection:
\[ q \equiv k \cdot \Gamma_{total} \]
Thus, the inverse-square law \(E \propto q/r^2\) is not due to a point source divergence. It is the geometric dilution of the Total Vorticity Magnitude of the knot spread over the surface area of the universe.
Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Axioms, or Laws of Motion, Law II. (Trans. Andrew Motte, 1729).↩︎
Newton, I. (1715). “Account of the Book entitled Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins, & aliorum de Analysi Promota”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 29(342), 173–224. (Published anonymously). Note: This admission appears in Newton’s anonymous review of the Commercium Epistolicum, the document central to his priority dispute with Leibniz. In it, he candidly admits that the geometric style of the Principia was a strategic choice to avoid controversy over his new calculus methods.↩︎
Newton, I. (1736). The Method of Fluxions and Infinite Series; with its Application to the Geometry of Curve-lines. Preface. (Trans. John Colson). [Written c. 1671].↩︎
Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Definition I.↩︎
Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Definition II.↩︎